Articles ##Racism

The advocates of mass immigration will say things like “all countries have immigration” or “immigration doesn’t just happen in White, Western countries – it’s a global phenomena”. Such statements are highly deceptive, and yet the vast majority of people simply accept them.

Most people have heard of ‘guest-worker immigration’. This is the immigration system which operates in non-White countries from Africa and Asia to the Middle East.

One of the key features of guest-worker immigration is that immigrants are treated as temporary, economic residents. That is, they are granted permission to stay (i.e. temporary residence) and permission to work for a limited period (e.g. for 10 years on a limited-time visa), after which they are expected to leave.

A second, crucially important, feature of guest-worker immigration is that the total immigrant population always remains the same size, the total immigrant population remains fixed (once the required number of immigrants has been reached.)

The overall immigrant population will always remain the same size whether the immigration process continues for 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years. Furthermore, even if the immigrant population has a large number of births, their children will be returned home with their parents. Guest-worker immigration provides advantages of immigration without greatly affecting the demographic balance of the country deploying it.

Overall, guest-worker immigration is flexible. It makes immigration easy to plan and control. It is easy to increase or decrease the total number of immigrants as the country’s economy fluctuates. And, if desired, the total number of immigrants can be returned to zero – since immigrants neither become citizens nor permanent residents.

Guest-worker immigration treats immigrants as temporary, economic guest-workers right from the start. And, unsurprisingly, it is the most common immigration system in the world. It is the immigration of choice throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East – yet it isn’t deployed in even a single White, Western country.

Overall, citizenship immigration can be characterized by:  • Endless inward immigration

• No expatriation process for immigrants – only illegal immigrants may be expatriated

• An ever-growing immigrant population

Unlike guest-worker immigration, citizenship immigration always leads to an ever-growing immigrant population because there is no expatriation process to keep the overall immigrant population in balance, almost all immigrants quickly gain the right to permanent residence or citizenship, any children born to them will automatically acquire permanent residence and/or citizenship too.

The total immigrant population will never stop growing because, few, if any, will leave. Most will become permanent residents or citizens, and those who acquire citizenship (including any children they may have) will no longer even be considered immigrants.

One system keeps the immigrant population static and unchanged, whilst the other system leads to rapid growth. Citizenship immigration leads to a rapidly growing immigrant population.

Overall, citizenship immigration creates conditions where the native population will become outnumbered by the immigrant population (i.e become a racial minority). Citizenship immigration has a social engineering component which is absent altogether under guest-worker immigration.  In economic terms, guest-worker immigration is a far more flexible and efficient than citizenship immigration. Under guest-worker immigration, non-working immigrants can be expatriated, older workers are continuously replaced by younger workers, and the immigrant population itself is static – yet it can be intentionally increased or reduced as economically necessary.

Under citizenship immigration, because existing immigrants rarely leave, once the total immigrant population is large enough, it will continue to expand – even if further immigration is stopped altogether!

Citizenship immigrants are necessarily (as citizens) granted access to welfare, social security, pensions, medical and healthcare support, housing benefits and other costly public services. These are clearly additional social costs and overheads which reduce – not increase – the economic benefits available under guest-worker immigration. Indeed, under guest-worker immigration, these social costs and overheads are the privilege of citizens alone – and immigrants are rarely granted citizenship.

Guest-worker immigration leads to an immigrant population which is fixed in size. This makes it easy to plan for. Because the immigrant population is fixed in size, the additional budgeting is relatives small and easy to plan.  Under citizenship immigration, on the other hand – where the vast majority of immigrants will acquire permanent citizenship – the costs will grow rapidly. Overall, there is a vast difference between planning for a fixed, static immigrant population and funding an ever-growing immigrant population.

Under citizenship immigration, non-working immigrants cannot easily be returned home – even if would be economically expedient to do so. Their legally protected ‘right’ to permanent residence and citizenship (in all and only White countries) mean that the immigrant population cannot be reduced without resorting to drastic measures, such as withdrawing permanent residence status or cancelling citizenship – measures which were economically unnecessary in the first place.

Overall, then, there are no economic advantages to offering immigrants citizenship and permanent residence – there are only additional costs and social burdens.

Under guest-worker immigration, the purpose of immigrants is to empower the economy. But under citizenship immigration, the primary function of economics is to endorse, justify, and (if necessary) suffer substantial economic losses for large-scale immigration and demographic engineering.  We can gain an important insight into what has motivated citizenship immigration (rather than guest-worker immigration) by simply looking at which countries have implemented it. When we do, we find that all and only White, Western countries have implemented citizenship immigration.  Why would any country choose an inflexible, economically inferior system of immigration which clearly and demonstrably changes the demographic make-up of the country – especially when a far superior alternative is widely available?

Choosing citizenship immigration over guest-worker immigration makes absolutely no sense – unless radically changing the demographic make-up of your country is the desired result.  We are constantly told that immigration is an “economic necessity” – and yet it’s more expensive, more inflexible and it’s vastly more demographical harmful. White countries alone operate a completely different immigration system to non-White countries. The economic arguments are lies.

These days, demographic decline is a common justification for endless immigration into the West. It would not, therefore, be very surprising if pro-immigration advocates were to argue that the West needs citizenship immigration to prevent the demographic decline of their native White population. On the surface, this appears plausible, yet the ‘demographic decline’ argument has a serious credibility problem.

If citizenship immigration is the tool of choice to combat ‘demographic decline’, then why don’t rich, non-White countries like Israel and Qatar force their people to adopt it?

Qatar, for example, is a country with only 278,000 citizens, yet it has an immigrant population of over 2 million! Yet because Qatar operates a system of guest-worker immigration, the ethnic Qatari population is protected from race-replacement, despite being outnumbered 8 to 1 by immigrants! Qataris are a small statistical minority (compared to the immigrant population) yet their immigrants are temporary guests, not citizens. Qataris will neither become an ethnic minority in Qatar, nor lose their culture or sovereignty. So why should we?

The final nail in the coffin for the ‘demographic decline’ argument, however, is the openly hostile attitude of Western leaders to measures which might boost White birth rates and halt that decline.

When Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, won his country’s election in April 2014, he called for the total cessation of immigration into his country coupled with policies designed to boost native Hungarian birth-rates. The outrage which ensued was as caustic as it was immediate. The EU Minister for Foreign Affairs, Vidar Helgesen (Norway), called for the EU to immediately impose economic sanctions on Hungary.

Thus, in White, Western countries it is the worldview of Mr Helgesen – not Mr Orban – which prevails amongst our leadership. And far from supporting measures which might halt ‘demographic decline’ (in all and only White countries), Western leaders utterly condemn such measures and seek to demonize, ostracize and alienate anyone brave enough to even suggest them.

Indeed, French ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy went even further; stating, on several occasions, that EU countries have a ‘moral obligation’ to engage in race-mixing – and not just accept (citizenship) immigration.

In reality, there are two different systems of immigration, and they have very different outcomes. The ugly truth is that all White, Western countries have been forced to accept one system of immigration whilst all non-White, non-Western countries are free to choose another. So, not only is the idea that there is one, universal system of immigration false, but the outcomes of those systems could not be more divergent and extreme. We have been silenced by wolves justifying biased, one-sided policies as ‘fairness’. Yet there is nothing fair about the outcome they have in mind.  Read more here: http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=32331 

The Hottentots who inhabit the Desert in what was once called Southwest Africa, down at the end of the continent, are the remnants of a race that once covered almost all of Africa below the Sahara. They are now almost extinct. They would be extinct if the white man had not come when he did.

This tiny remnant is now called the Capoid race. Today's blacks, who took Africa from them only recently, are called Congoids.

Nobody cares. The Hottentots don't have any votes or money, so nobody mentions it.

The black race of today did not give the Capoid race reservations and reparations when they took their land the way we did for the Indians. No black man has ever felt the slightest tinge of guilt about driving the Capoid race off its land and out of existence.

None ever will.

In the days of slavery, that slavery we feel so guilty about, blacks were wiping out the Capoids and taking their land. When poor little Kunte Kinte was taken by blacks and sold to whites (no white man ever captured a black man the way the fictional television miniseries Roots depicted it), the poor little black race was committing full-scale genocide against the Capoids.

No black will ever feel the slightest tinge of guilt about this and no one will ever expect him to. There's no money in it. - Bob Whitaker

Is the mainstream media deliberately fabricating a myth of white racism in America in order to cover up an epidemic of black-on-white violence? While most Americans are aware of the Trayvon Martin shooting in Sanford, Florida on February 26, 2012, very few know about the thousands of whites who have been brutally murdered, raped, beaten and robbed by blacks as the media keeps regurgitating lies about the Martin case. Are the lives of these innocent white Americans not important enough to report on, or is the media purposely inciting racial tensions for a reason?

Anyone who has paid attention to the Martin shooting knows that key information about the case has been distorted and fabricated. Evidence now shows that George Zimmerman had a broken nose, black eyes and lacerations to the back of his head. The police report stated that Zimmerman’s back was wet and covered with grass clippings. On the other hand, Martin’s autopsy revealed that Martin’s knuckles were scraped. Even eyewitnesses saw the six-foot-three-inch Martin viciously pummeling the five-foot-nine-inch Zimmerman in the face while he had him on the ground.

While this dog-and-pony show is going on, however, the mainstream media has been totally silent on atrocious crimes that have been committed by blacks on whites since the Martin shooting. Here are a few—from among dozens of incidents—that this newspaper has confirmed.

On February 27, the day after the Martin shooting, two black males in Detroit abducted and killed a white couple. The victims were found bound, shot and burned beyond recognition in an alley. Police are calling it a random “thrill killing.”

On February 28, in Kansas City, Missouri, two black teens attacked a 13-year-old white boy on his front porch as he was returning from school. They poured gasoline on him and set him on fire for no apparent reason, saying “You get what you deserve white boy!”

On March 14, a 20-year-old black man broke into the home of Bob and Nancy Straight in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He raped the 85-year-old Mrs. Straight and then beat her to death. Then he shot 90-year-old Mr. Straight in the face with a pellet gun and broke his jaw and ribs. He died several days later. The thug stole $200, a TV set and their Dodge Neon, which he drove to a nearby house where he went to hide. The police spotted the stolen car in front of the house and arrested him.

On April 1, in Jackson, Mississippi, a 31-year-old black man broke into a house to rob it and found a white woman inside. He forced her to lie on the floor with a blanket over her head as he shot her in the back of the head, execution-style.

On April 5, in Tunica, Mississippi, a 34-year-old black man checked into a hotel with his pregnant 25-year-old white girlfriend and their one-year-old child. The next day the woman was found dead on the floor brutally mutilated and covered with blood, as was the one-year-old child. The knife was in the room.

On April 15, in Las Vegas, a 22-year-old black man raped a 38-year-old white woman and her 10-year-old daughter. He then killed them by smashing their skulls with a hammer.

On top of all these brutal murders there have been a number of “flash mob” attacks across the country where anywhere from half a dozen to as many as a hundred blacks gang up on innocent people and beat them senseless. In at least 12 of these cases documented by this writer, the blacks have cited revenge for the shooting of Martin as the motive for the savageries, although in many cases the victims were also robbed.

One of these attacks occurred in Norfolk, Virginia, where more than 30 blacks brutally beat a white couple as another 70 blacks watched and cheered them on, a typical phenomenon in these black-on-white “flash mob” attacks. Martin’s name came up as the excuse for the brutality. The couple actually worked for the main newspaper in town, The Virginian Pilot, which has direct political ties to the Obama administration. That publication could not even be bothered to report on the attack of its own employees for two weeks—and even then it was only as an opinion piece written by a friend of the couple.

The couple said the police officer who responded acted strangely. After having been viciously beaten, kicked in the face and dragged by her hair, the battered woman was told by the officer to “shut up and get in the car.” He did not record any names of witnesses and said the attackers were “probably juveniles anyway. What are we going to do? Find their parents and tell them?” Pointing to public housing in the area, he said large groups of “teenagers” look for trouble on the weekends. “It’s what they do,” he told the couple.

http://americanfreepress.net/media-covers-up-black-hate-crimes-against-whites/

Is it an expression of racial hatred?

There has been much debate about the very meager statistics on inter-racial rape. For years, incomplete but still informative estimates were available through the US Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey (see table 42 on page 55). Although these numbers are extrapolations based on small numbers of reported rapes and include verbal as well as physical sex assaults, it is clear that there is much more black-on-white than white-on-black rape.

In 2009, Barack Obama became president, and put Eric Holder in charge of the Department of Justice. Since then, the information on inter-racial crime from the National Crime Victimization Survey has been kept from the public.

While it’s going to be a long time before any kind of precise figures are had, most everyone in America would be willing to concede that there is more black-on-white rape than white-on-black. The implicit admission of this can be found in the standard liberal excuse: interracial rape figures are lop-sided because there are five times as many whites as blacks in the United States, so black rapists naturally find a lot of white victims. That might be plausible if the United States were well integrated, and if the average black man lived around a lot of white women. He doesn’t.

America as a whole is “diverse,” but most Americans live in neighborhoods with people of the same race as themselves. As a rule of thumb, the more racially diverse a city is, the more racially homogeneous its neighborhoods are. Therefore, if rapists choose their victims at random, that victim is likely to be of the same race. Most black rapists live in inner cities, and are especially unlikely to live around white women. In a country as segregated as the United States, all interracial crime at least suggests a certain degree of racial targeting.

Furthermore, celebrated black authors have written very explicitly about their desire to punish white women by raping them.

James Baldwin wrote:

[T]here is, I should think, no Negro living in America who . . . has not wanted to smash any white face he may encounter in a day, to violate, out of motives of the cruelest vengeance, their women, to break the bodies of all white people. . . .

Eldridge Cleaver of the Black Panthers wrote of his career as a rapist:

Rape [of white women] was an insurrectional act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women . . . I felt that I was getting revenge.

Amiri Baraka, originally known as LeRoi Jones and who was named New Jersey Poet Laureate in 2002, wrote in his poem “Black Dada Nihilimus:”

Come up, black dada nihilismus.

Rape the white girls.

Rape their fathers.

Cut the mothers’ throats.

And, indeed, some blacks have raped white women for reasons of pure, political hatred.

For a 179-day period in 1973 and 1974, a group of Black Muslim “Death Angels” kept the city of San Francisco in a panic as they killed randomly-chosen “blue-eyed devils” in what came to be called the “zebra murders.” Estimates put the number of white victims at between 15 and 73. Female victims were oftenraped before they were executed.

In 1992, Joseph Gardner of Charleston, South Carolina, and his two friends, Matt Williams and Matt Mack, decided to get “get even” for white oppression by murdering a white woman. They abducted Melissa “Missi” McLauchlin and brought her back to their trailer park. They raped her and put out the word that they had “captured a white woman.” Three other black men came and also raped her. Then they tortured her with bleach and hydrogen peroxide, shot her in the face five times, and left her to die by the side of a road.

In 2008, a white woman wept on the witness stand as she described her rape at the hands of a black man who broke into her apartment in Raleigh, North Carolina. He told her he was punishing her for the historic crimes of whites.

In 2013 Corey Batey, a black football player at Vanderbilt University filmed himself and some of his teammates as they raped a white woman at a party. Mr. Batey then urinated on her face, saying, “That’s for 400 years of slavery you b—-.”

In 2016 Lee Harris raped a white woman at knifepoint and told her he did so “because you are white.”

Blacks in other countries have raped white women for similar reasons. In Britain, a black illegal immigrant named Amos Moobeng raped a teen-age girl because she was white.

In Brazil, a black man named Sailson Jose das Gracas confessed to murdering at least 41 whites. As he explained: “Women for me has to be white, not black, because of my color. I got pleasure from them fighting, screaming and scratching me.” Das Gracas did not rape his victims; he masturbated after killing them.

Zimbabwe, where most whites have been driven from the country, “rape gangs” target the few white women who remain.

In prisons, black men rape white men out of hatred and a desire to dominate them. A 2001 report by Human Rights Watch concluded that tens of thousands of men are raped every year in the United States—almost all of them white prisoners raped by blacks. Some blacks make whites their sex slaves, whom they buy, sell, and rent out to other blacks.

“Within a week he was pimping me out to other inmates at $3.00 a man,” said a white who was forced to become a black inmates “wife.” “You can buy a kid for 20 or 30 dollars on most wings,” explained one convict. “They sell them like cattle.”

Sean Smith, a white man in a South African prison, said he was raped every day of his months-long sentence, often several times a day. “They did it not just as part of gang dominance but in my case it was showing supremacy over a white man—I was the only one there,” he said. By the end, he was HIV positive.

There is vastly more black-on-white than white-on-black violence of all kinds, not just rape. Of the estimated 650,000 black-white crimes of violence committed every year, blacks are the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This means that a black person, on average, is 27 times more likely to attack a white than vice versa. It is impossible to know how much of this sharp disproportion reflects deliberate targeting, but racial hatred surely accounts for some of it.

Over the course of a decade, John Floyd Thomas, Jr. raped and killed as many as 30 elderly white women throughout Los Angeles County, which means he was probably the area’s most prolific serial killer. He is black and every one of his victims was white. Was this a coincidence or was he, too, “getting even”? His Wikipedia page is silent about the race of his victims; this would be unthinkable in the case of white killers, such as Joseph Paul Franklinor Dylann Roof, who attacked blacks.

Even when blacks do not openly express anti-white animus, the sheer brutality of their crimes suggests something more than conventional criminal motives. When Curtis Vanceraped Anne Pressly, a white woman, he beat her so savagely with a garden tool that her “jaw was forced to the back of her head and cut off blood flow to her brain.” The mother of the victim found her lying in a pool of blood, gasping for air.

The black-on-white crimes that became known as the “Knoxville Horror” and the “Wichita Massacre,” were likewise cases of rape, murder, torture, and sexual humiliation so appalling that it is very difficult to believe the killers were not acting out of deep hatred for whites.

White-on-black rape is not unheard of. In Oklahoma City, a half-white half-Japanese police officer was recently convicted of targeting black women for rape. However, crimes of this kind rarely show the vicious brutality of the haunting cases noted above. White rapists simply do not seem to mutilate or kill their victims. The most famous black rape victims—Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum—turned out to be hoaxers, along with many others.

Whatever the exact numbers, there is no doubt that blacks rape whites far more often than whites rape blacks. It is clear that at least some blacks rapists hate whites, and rape is a particularly satisfying way for them to express their hatred.

https://www.amren.com/commentary/2017/05/black-on-white-rape-anti-white-racism-crime/